Posts

Trade Marks - Re FOOTWARE, Puma SE v Nike Innovate CV

Image
Author Anthony Appleyard   Licence  CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Commons A   Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr Justice Zacaroli) Puma SE v Nike Innovate CV [2021] EWHC 1438 In  Trade Marks - Equisafety v Battle Hayward and Bower   7 Jan 2021 IP Northwest, I discussed Mr Nicholas Caddick QC's judgment in Equisafety Ltd v Battle, Hayward and Bower, Ltd and another [2021] EWHC 3296 (IPEC) (8 Dec 2021) where the defendants counterclaimed for a declaration that the registration of MERCURY for a range of high visibility equestrian products was invalid on the ground that the mark was descriptive. This is another case where the registration of a word mark was challenged on a similar ground. The mark in question was FOOTWARE  and registration was sought by Nike Innovate CV for a wide range of goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42 relating to computing and telecommunications. The application was opposed by Puma SE on the following grounds: "i) Under s. 3 (1) (b), that the ma

Patents - Promptu Systems Corporation v Sky UK Ltd.

Image
  Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Meade)  Promptu Systems Corporation v Sky UK Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 2021 (Pat) (19 July 2021) This was a claim for patent infringement by Promptu Systems Corporation ("Promptu") against Sky UK Ltd. and various related companies ("Sky") and a counterclaim by Sky for revocation. The patent in suit had been granted for a system and method of voice recognition near a wireline node of a network supporting cable television and/or video delivery by the European Patent Office under publication number EP1290889B1 . The action and counterclaim came on before Mr Justice Meade on 14 to 16 June 2021 and his lordship delivered judgment on 19 July 2021 (see Promptu Systems Corporation v Sky UK Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 2021 (Pat) (19 July 2021). By para [241] of his judgment, Mr Justice Meade held that the patent was invalid and should be revoked but had it been valid it would have been infringed. The Invention The abstract describ

Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers - The Mail's Appeal

Image
Century and Harbor Freeway Interchange Author Remi Jouan   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Sir Geoffrey Vos MR, Dame Victoria Sharp, President, Lord Justice Bean)  HRH the Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1810 (2 Dec 2021) This was an appeal against the decisions of Mr Justice Warby in  HRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWHC 273 (Ch)  on 11 Feb 2021 and HRH Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd . [2021] EWHC 1245 (Ch) on 12 May 2021.   I discussed those judgments in  Summary Judgment - Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers   and   Copyright - Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd   on 12 Feb and 13 June 2021 respectively.  The Litigation The duchess sued the publisher of the Mail on Sunday and the MailOnline after they had reproduced and commented upon large passages from a handwritten letter that she had sent to her father.  Her causes of action were misuse of

Practice - Costa v Dissociadid Ltd.

Image
Rolls Building Author Roger Green   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source   Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Recorder Amanda Michaels)  Costa v Dissociadid Ltd. and another [2021] EWHC 3275 (IPEC) (2 Dec 2021) On 19 Nov 2021, the recorder Ms Amanda Michaels, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, heard two strikeout and summary judgment applications. One from the claimant and the other from the defendants. The applications arose in a copyright claim. The claimant accused the defendants of using scripts and other materials without his permission. The defendants said that he had agreed that they could use those materials.  They counterclaimed for breach of contract, breach of a non-disclosure agreement and unlawful interference. with their YouTube channel.  The defendants applied for the claim to be struck out on 3 Nov 2021.  The claimant applied for parts of the defence and counterclaim to be struck out on 5 Nov 2021. Each side contended that the o